Logical Reasoning

PT3 · S2 · Q16 It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping of nuclear waste poses no threat to people living nearby.

Background

Officials repeatedly claim nuclear waste dumping poses no threat to nearby populations. If that claim were certain, there would be no reason to avoid densely populated areas.

Conclusion

Since waste is dumped only in sparsely populated areas, those responsible must have some misgivings about safety.

Evidence

The choice to avoid densely populated areas is treated as evidence of safety doubts.

Evaluate

The argument assumes the only reason to put dumps in sparsely populated areas is safety concern. But that is not the only possible reason. If sparsely populated areas are simply easier or cheaper to use — for non-safety reasons — then the policy choice does not imply doubts about safety at all.

Goal

The correct answer should give a non-safety reason to prefer sparsely populated areas, breaking the inference from "they avoid populated areas" to "they have safety doubts."

16.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

  1. Evacuation plans in the event

    Opposite

    This actually supports the author. If evacuation plans only work where population is small, that is itself a safety-related reason to choose sparsely populated areas — which means officials are picking those areas because they have safety concerns. The argument is reinforced, not weakened.

    8% picked this

  2. In the event of an

    Opposite

    This is also a safety-related reason. If accidents would harm fewer people in sparsely populated areas, then officials are choosing those areas to limit the human cost of any accident — a safety motivation. The author's conclusion that they have safety misgivings would be supported, not weakened.

    9% picked this

  3. Correct

    Dumping of nuclear waste poses

    Why this is right

    Here is the alternative explanation. If sparsely populated areas pose fewer economic and bureaucratic problems, then officials may be choosing them for purely practical reasons — not because they have any doubts about safety. The author's inference (location choice = safety doubts) collapses, because the location choice can be fully explained by reasons that have nothing to do with safety.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    70% picked this

  4. There are dangers associated with

    No Impact

    What happens with chemical waste does not establish why nuclear waste is sited where it is. Even if chemical waste is also dumped away from populated areas for safety reasons, that does not give us a reason to think nuclear officials are not similarly concerned. This neither breaks the author's inference nor offers an alternative.

    5% picked this

  5. Until there is no shred

    Opposite

    This is essentially a normative restatement of the author's position: it makes sense to be cautious until we are sure. If anything, this supports the idea that officials reasonably have safety misgivings — exactly the conclusion the author drew. It does not weaken the argument.

    9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free